Microsoft has dumb customers

Microsoft features 'real' people in their new ads who are looking for laptops and, surprise, they find that PCs running Windows are better for them than Macs.

The first 'shopper' up was the now infamous Lauren who says she is on a strict $1000 budget. Why such a strict budget Lauren? You are driving a VW Beetle that costs a good $10,000 more then a nice little Honda or Toyota. It's a vanity car. I don't know much about clothes, but yours look trendy and expensive. And, in the end, you are 'drawn' to one laptop because of its looks.

So, the idea that you are on a budget, or that you are too smart to get suckered into the Mac simply for its design is flat our ridiculous. In reality, 9 out of 10 Laurens wind up buying a Mac


Second 'shopper' up is Giampaolo. He says he is 'technically savvy'. He drives a Ford Probe, 'nuf said.

Also note that none of these shoppers seem to do any research until they hit the floor at their local Best Buy. That's just dumb.

I'm going on about this because it is really sad that Microsoft just can't figure out how to find an ad agency with a brain.

Oh, and I own a Mac (I got a good deal on it). And I run Windows on it. And I drive a Toyota Matrix. It's not pretty or hip (it is downright ugly) but it was cheap, reliable, and is like a mini truck when I put the rear seats down.

Circus

People are very upset about bonuses handed out to AIG execs. Granted, it is rather shameless for AIG to be continuing down the same seemingly greed driven path they have been on, but let's keep two things in mind. First, we don't know why the bonuses were given. There is a slight chance that these execs made some kind of herculean effort that minimized AIG's loses. Maybe without these people things would be a whole lot worse. I'm just saying it's possible. Second, it's only $165 million. That is just peanuts in the greater scheme of things. No, actually it's less then that, it's peanut shells.

Yes, it sickens me that a bunch of greedy bastards who screwed up royally are getting even more compensation for their irredeemable behavior, but this huge uproar over it is simply a side show we don't have time for. We and out leaders should be focusing on fixing the larger economic problems at hand. Spending this much time over how $165 was used is just stupid.

And, it's not AIG's fault, it was written into law. There was an amendment added that allowed any bonus stipulated before February 11, 2009 to be paid out. So can we really blame AIG for handing them out? Well, of course we can, but the bigger issue here is were did that amendment come from. There is a lot of finger pointing, but no one is fessing up.

This amendment is the much, much bigger breach of ethics then the bonuses themselves, because it is a grotesque use of political power. We need to stop talking about the bonuses and simply have the Senate setup an investigation into who added the amendment. It does not have to be a big show, put just enough people on it to get it sorted out. Once we know who did it, we know who will be resigning. Or, if they are too stupid and cowardly, who will be expelled from the Senate.

It is a bit ironic, but if the White House and Congress would spend even one percent of the time they have spent on this circus on each and every $165 million they spend, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

AdSense Interest-Based Advertising

Over the coming months, Google will be rolling out a new feature to their AdSense system called "Interest-Based Advertising". If you are not familiar with AdSense, scroll down a little and a look in the right hand column. See the light blue box that says at the top, "Ads by Google"? That is AdSense. Ads in that box are automatically placed there by Google. Google scans the content of my site and figures out which ads match that content. I write about photography a lot, so most of the ads are photography related. I get a couple of pennies every time those ads are clicked.

With this new "Interest-Based Advertising" system, Google will change the way it determines which ads will appear. Ad selection will now be, at least in part, determined by a visitor's profile that has been built up over time. What that means is that Google will track your movements on the Internet and determine what you are interested in. Don't get paranoid, it can only track you on Google properties and sites with AdSense. Google requires all participating sites to disclose this in their Privacy Policy. If you look at a lot of photography related sites, Google will think you are a photographer and show you photography related ads. It will not matter too much which site you are on, if the site has AdSense, Google will populate that site with photography ads.

This is the logical path for Google to follow, but I'm not crazy about it and think that, to some extent, it is a bad idea. It too easily pigeon-holes a person into being one type of shopper, in essence, one type of person. Sure, I look at a lot of photography equipment, but what if I decide I want to start scuba diving? If I go to a scuba blog, will I still see ads for photography? Now, it's reasonable to assume that Google will eventually realize I am now a photographer and a scuba diver, but how long does that take?

This may water down the effectiveness of AdSense as there will always be a lag between what Google thinks my interests are and what my interest is at that moment. For instance, if I go to a blog about baby cribs to read up on those for the first time, AdSense may show me ads for photography, because that is what Google has determined my interest to be. Well, I'm not shopping for photo gear, I'm shopping for cribs. Eventually, Google will figure that out, but that is of no use to that first web site I went to. That web site owner won't get any of my clicks because they are not relevant to what I want right now. This, ironically, may hurt the most relevant web sites that show up at the very top of Google search results as you will look at those sites before Google has a chance to figure out that you are now looking for cribs.

Can I turn "Interest-Based Advertising" off?

Yes, Interest-Based Advertising can be turned off. Both as a web site owner and a surfer.

If you are a web site owner, you can go into your AdSense account and opt out of this new system in which case, ads will be served to your site they way they have been. Here is how you turn off Interest-Based Advertising. Though, Google is implying that you may not have access to the same pool of ads because some advertisers may opt to only put ads on sites that are using Interest-Based Advertising.

If you are browsing the Internet and you don't want Google to track your activity for use with this system, you can opt out of the tracking cookie here. If you want to take advantage of this new system, but want more control, you can set your preferences here.

So far, I have only talked about the potential doom and gloom of this new system, but it can be a good thing too. It will allow advertisers to target their audience much more precisely, and most importantly, on an ongoing basis. An advertiser could setup their ads to remember how you have interacted with them in the past. For instance, say I click on an AdSense ad for camera equipment on Amazon.com. Amazon has the power now to remember the information for the next AdSense delivered ad I see from them. Maybe I clicked on an add for a specific camera and bought it. Amazon has the ability to then tailor the next ad I see from them to maybe some lens or other accessory for that camera which they currently have on sale. The interaction possibilities are almost endless and may give the consumer more timely and relevant ads. That can be good for the consumer and the web site owner because it means I will be clicking on more of their ads and they get more of Google's pennies.

And, this being Google, they are smarter then I so it is likely that they are at least aware of these pitfalls and are working to minimize them, or make them go away entirely.

I've turned off the Interest-Based Advertising on this site for now, I don't want to be part of the 'beta' project. But I will be keeping an eye on the system and experimenting with it in the coming years to see if it becomes more of a helpful or harmful service.

Buttons = Good

The 2nd generation iPod Shuffle was one of the most beautifully designed mass manufactured products ever (IMHO). Granted, it had the dreaded click wheel, but its size, shape, and the fact that it was basically a clip with a music player built in made it one masterfully designed object. It bordered on being too small to be practical, but it was still large enough so that it was possible to find after you put it down.

Ever the optimist, I thought Apple would improve the Shuffle by keeping the shape, but replacing the click wheel with discrete buttons that would be easier to find and distinguish by touch. And maybe add a little screen?

Sadly, this was not to be, the new iPod shuffle eschews buttons to the point of sacrificing usability. It is also too small and nondescript. Put it down and I dare you to find it again.

The controls are on the headphones which ties the player to the headphones. Don't like the included headphones? Tough, get used to it. It's Apple's way or the highway.

Why even bother having the headphones plug in? you can not change them, so a more fully thought out design would simply integrate them with the player. There is simply no need to have them as a detachable part. It's an odd oversight for a company known for its design prowess.

Granted, most people will probably still be able to pick it up and just start using it, but there are several features that will be opaque to those who don't read the manual. But, for such a simple product, should there even be a manual?

These hidden features are all based on audio feedback feature of the new shuffle, it now talks to you. I hate the idea of my audio device talking to me, but no one will know they are there, so I guess that it's a wash.

But why build features into a product that people won't use, that people can't use because they don't know they are there.

The hardcore Apple consumers, not the fanboys, but the ones that buy a new iPod every year because they break, or loose, or just want to replace their old iPod don't read the manual. They just want to pick it up and use it, taking the cues on how to use the player from the player itself.

It's just bad design to obfuscate the functions of a product.

Edit: Almost as soon as I published this post, I realized that there are plenty of good reasons to obfuscate functions of a product, especially software. Many products (like Microsoft Word) have huge features sets that only a handful of people use. So obfusscating those features clear up the interface for the average user, but leave them there for the power user.

Now, the iPod Touch is incredible. And now that it works with the Kindle Bookstore, it's even more incredible. I had a chance to have a look at a the Kindle App for the iPhone and, though it was a little small, found it to be a cool and usable eBook reader. Granted, I'm still young enough to set the type to its smallest setting, that does make a big difference. If you can not read it at the smallest text size, it becomes very tedious to flip the page every two seconds. I wonder too if it will also cause excessive eye strain having to constantly go from line to line as you are forced to with such short lines of text.

Talk, Not Torture Wins the Day

"Similarly, it was a relationship-building approach that we used to persuade a detainee to give us information on the whereabouts of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia — information that led to his being located and killed in 2006."

I wonder why no one at the Bush White House thought this was worth mentioning...

From, "Try a Little Tenderness".

Inexpensive Macro Photography

I've moved this post, please head over there to see my newest photography reviews.

I am very much enthralled with the abstraction of macro photography (as seen in my photos) and I'm all about cheap. So, let me combine the two, here is a cheap way to shoot macro. The nice thing about this solution is that it will work on just about any camera, DSLRs as well as Point and Shoots.

Here it is, the Opteka 52mm 10x HD² Professional Macro Lens. This 'closeup filter' attaches to the front of a lens with a 58mm filter thread. Opteka sells this closeup filter in several different kits, each one containing a different 'step down filter adapter' that allows it to fit different lens filter sizes. 58mm is the size of many Canon lenses including the ubiquitous Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS. On this page, Amazon has a boatload of kits to fit just about any DSLR and many point and shoots.

Essentially, adding one of these to your lens is like putting a magnifying glass in front of your camera. The images below show how it compares to a true macro lens, the inimitable Nikon 60mm Micro. The first image is with the 60mm at full extension, at this 'zoom' the 60mm is a 1:1 ratio. That means that image is fully filling the sensor at a one to one scale. The next image is with the Opteka fit on the standard Nikon 18-55mm AF-S VR kit lens at 55mm and focused as close as possible. Following that, is a shot with the same lens, but without the 18-55mm so the impact of the closeup filter and be readily seen. The last image is with the Opteka attached to the wonderful Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF-D.

Click on an image to see the larger, straight from the camera, image.

Nikon 60mm Micro

Opteka on the Nikon 18-55mm AF-S VR lens

Nikon 18-55mm AF-S VR lens without the Opteka

Opteka on the Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D

The Opteka brings the 18-55mm quite a bit closer, almost to 1:1. Same goes for the Opteka on the 50mm. The images a softer than the 60mm Macro, but for $30, it seems like a bargain to me. On these smaller lenses at longer focal lengths there is no noticeable vignetting, but there will be on fatter lenses. The 18-55mm will show vignetting as you zoom out, but it works best for macro shots at 55mm, so there is no reason to be zooming out.

The depth of field is noticeably more shallow in the image from the 60mm, this is because the closer you get, the shallower your depth of field becomes. All the images were shot at f14 so it is apparent that a lot of light is needed to make a macro shot work. Unless you want to exaggerate the shallow depth of field, in which case, attaching the Opteka to the 50mm f1.8 really makes things interesting. Even though the 60mm is rated as an f2.8, that is not fixed, the closer you focus, the more it stops down. It is only f2.8 at about 6 feet to infinity, then starts to stop down and ends at f5 at its closest (1:1) focus.

Now, if you put the Opteka on the 50mm f1.8, it does not stop down, it shoots at whatever aperture you want from 1.8 too 22.

OK, so what happens if the Opteka is attached to the 60mm? It does get in closer, but the trade-off of sharpness is, in my opinion, is not worth it. Without the opteka, the 60mm will frame the helmet from top to bottom with a little space, with the Opteka attached, most of the domed head would be cropped out. At that point, the depth of field gets so shallow that a great deal of light is needed to stop down all the way to the 60mm's minimum aperture, f57.

One last note, I've tested the Opteka with the 50mm f1.8 on a full frame FX camera (Nikon N75) and there is no noticeable vignetting there either.

Showing at 2009 KMAA exhibition "Seasonal Shift"

I had two photographs selected for the 2009 KMAA exhibition "Seasonal Shift". The show will be at Ridgefield Guild's Gallery Barn. Show details:

• March 15, 4-7 PM: Artists' Reception
• March 22: Gallery talk by the juror, Michael Blakeney
• March 29: Last day of exhibition . Artists pick up work 4-7 PM

Ridgefield Guild of Artists

Water / Light #4

Water / Light #3

A list of the participating artists

• Sally Aldrich : The Sky is Falling
  
• Frances B. Ashfoth : Spring Field
  
• Suzanne Ashley : Mill Street
  
• Lois M. Barker : The Awakening
  
• Deborah Beck : Morning Dew
  
• Richard Bennett : Yankee Nightgame & Baseball Grid
  
• Edward Burke : Early Spring
  
• Sarah Corbin : Oak Spring
  
• Ivy Dachman : Untitled43
  
• Hilda Green Demsky : South of the Wind
  
• Karen Williams Edelmann : The Earth. That is Sufficient
  
• Monique Ford : Tropic Improv
  
• Marcy B. Freedman : Ten Seconds (How Time Flies)
  
• Randy Frost : Metro North - Harlem Division
  
• James Fryer : Water-Light-3 & Water-Light-4
  
• Michele Gage : Untitled (Mianus River Gorge 4)
  
• Julia Goldberg : Lily Pond - Bronx Botanical Gardens
  
• Patricia A. Grabel : New England Winter
  
• H. Sitki Gulergun : Bullseye
  
• June Gumbel : The Orchard in the Spring
  
• Nils Hill:  WNY-1
  
• Bernie Kessler:  Constitution Marsh, Garrison & Rolling Meadows
  
• GG Kopilak : Tree Reflections
  
• Barbara Korman : Coming Alive
  
• Paul Krause : Crescent Pods
  
• Elaine Krause : Lotus Variation
  
• Martee Levi : Winter Thaw
  
• Annette Lieblein : Transitional II
  
• Belle Manes : The Woods are Lovely Dark and Deep…
  
• Ronald Meyerson : Illusion #12
  
• Bernie Mindich : Spring Forward
  
• Nancy Egol Nikkal : Winter Thaw 2
  
• Constance Old : Whiskmarks 0107212508
  
• Ethel Renek : Edge of the Woods
  
• Harriet Sadow:  Four Seasons & The Midnight Wind
  
• Renee Santhouse : March Wind on the Bay
  
• Barbara Browner Schiller : Joie de Vivre
  
• Wendy Shalen : Montalk Dawn
  
• Phyllis Sinrich : A New Day
  
• Arle Sklar-Weinstein : Message from Waccabuc
  
• Ron Topping : Four Seasons
  
• John Wagner : Mianus Summer
  
• Gabriella E. Wagner : Little Raincloud
  

Fusion Essentials Non-Review

I am in the market for a new Web Design application and NetObjects Fusion Essentials looked interesting enough to take out for a test spin.

I installed, registered it (they require an email address and verification - tacky), and started it up.

Then I tried to open a site I've been working on. Trouble is, the site is built with PHP pages, not HTML pages. Fusion Essentials does not recognize PHP files, so I could not open anything on the site.

A 'Web Design' application that can not open and edit PHP files? Seriously? Even Kompozer will open and edit PHP files. Not only that, Kompozer will render HTML markup in its WYSIWYG mode. Heck, even Notepad will at least open PHP files!

JustLooking Image Viewer for the Mac

JustLooking is a nice little application for OS X that previews images and lets you scroll through all the images in a given folder. It acts like Picture and Fax Viewer in Windows XP.

It is a nice free little application I use all the time on my MacBook.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3

There is a lot of chatter about Panasonic's new top end point and shoot, the Panasonic DMC-LX3, and it all seems pretty good. And with good reason, this camera looks to be the first time a big manufacturer has put image quality ahead of marketing tricks. Instead of increasing megapixles well beyond reason, Panasonic has capped it at 10MP. Granted, that's still more then is needed, but at least it is a start. For reference, 6MP is a great spot for most people. I have many prints from my 6MP D70 printed at 20x30". That is pretty big.

The constrained megapixels keep the images from being overrun with undesirable color noise that has a big negative impact on images. Because there are fewer megapixels, you can get more images on the memory card. And those smaller images take up less space on your computer. The smaller images are easier and faster to both view and edit on the computer.

But the constrained megapixel count really is only one reason for all the interest. This little camera has a very wide angle lens for a point and shoot. Its wide end is equivalent to 24mm (on a 35mm camera). Most point and shoots are 35mm at best at the wide end. There are a few that go to 28mm, but not many. Most all DSLRs from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Sony ship with zoom lenses with an 18mm (28mm equivalent) on the wide end of the kit lens.

But, wait, that's not all! In addition Panasonic LX3has a super 'fast lens'. It's aperture is f2 to f2.8! That is just crazy for a point and shoot. The LX3's aperture (a variable iris between the lens and the sensor) opens wider then most lenses to let more light in. That means that it can shoot in low light, but maintain a faster shutter speed. This camera can take better, less blurry and less noisy images in low light. For comparison, the kit lenses for most DSLRs are f3.5 to f5.6, that lets much less light in so it is not as good in low light. This is not to say the LX3 can really compete with a Nikon D40or Canon XSi, but it is starting to encroach in their territory. It is the most serious competition DSLRs have yet seen from the world of point and shoot cameras.

It is important to remember the that 'low light' to a camera is not the same thing as 'low light' to humans. We see in low light much better them cameras. In a typical indoor scene, we humans can see very well, there is plenty of light. But for cameras, this is considered low light. The only time a camera is really happy is outside on a bright day or when it can create its own light by using a flash.

Using a flash is convenient, but not very pleasing. First, with a compact camera, you usually wind up with 'red eye'. But more important, flashes make people look bad, they highlight blemishes and create shadows that exaggerate wrinkles and can often over expose faces and make your subject look like the undead.

So, flash = bad.

Panasonic has three techniques to let you shoot without flash:

1. Wide f2 aperture
2. Restrained 10MP sensor
3. Effective high ISO performance

And for shooters who know there way around photography software, the LX3 has one more trick to eek out the most from low light shooting, it can shoot in RAW. The RAW format is the 'raw' image data that the sensor captures. Then, the camera converts that data into a JPG image file. This is a handy step because it takes that raw data and refines it so the final image not only looks great, but also is easy to print and share.

But, this ease comes at a cost. When the camera converts to JPG it applies a lot of 'enhancements' that it thinks you want and discards a bunch of other image data that you might want. During the conversion, the camera will try and correct the color, adjust the contrast, sharpen the image, and even correct for barrel distortion. Most of the time, for most shooters, this really is a good thing. But, for photography pros, this is not usually desirable.

If you are a pro shooter, you have spent years learning photography and developing a process to capture the image you want the way you want. You, the pro shooter, do not need to leave the 'developing' up to some dumb camera. You can do it better, and with the RAW data, you have more latitude to make the adjustments you want to make.

With the RAW file, the pro shooter has more latitude to push the exposure, color balance, noise, and sharpening one way of the other to really get what she is after.

Now if the last few paragraphs about RAW bores you to tears, no worries, the LX3 takes great shots in JPG. Done.

The natural competitor to the Panasonic LX3is the Canon G10. Some people who have used both, like the image (and movie) quality of the LX3. They generally do bemoan the fact that the LX does not have the nice solid feeling body of the G10, or the G10's dials and buttons that allow direct control of advances features.

The G10 is definitely a beauty, but for me, the smaller size of the LX3 and, more importantly, the better image quality trump the G10.

But then, I've not shot with either of these cameras so don't take my word for it, see what the pros say:

Panasonic Lumix DMC LX3 Unboxing from Scott Bourne on Vimeo.

Scott Bourne's mini review

DPReview's complete review